Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 41 references

Photoelectron circular dichroism of a chiral molecule induced by resonant interatomic Coulombic decay from an antenna atom

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read An achiral atom can act as an antenna to induce photoelectron circular dichroism in a nearby chiral molecule, with the asymmetry reversed in sign relative to direct ionization.

desk verdict Clean derivation of a new effect, but the proposed He-camphor experiment violates the orientation-averaging assumption, so the headline numerical prediction is not secured. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02377 v2 pith:3IMGIDCH submitted 2024-12-03 physics.atm-clus

Stefan Yoshi Buhmann , Andreas Hans , Janine C. Franz , Philipp V. Demekhin This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.atm-clus
keywords photoelectroncirculardichroismresonantinteratomicCoulombicdecayantennaatomchiralmoleculedipole-dipoleenergytransfermacroscopicQEDcamphorpolarization
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper predicts that a nonchiral atom can act as an antenna to make a nearby chiral molecule display photoelectron circular dichroism (PECD). The atom is resonantly excited by circularly polarized light and transfers its energy to the molecule by resonant interatomic Coulombic decay (rICD); the electron ejected from the molecule then carries a forward-backward asymmetry that reflects the light's handedness. From a retarded dipole-dipole interaction rate, the authors derive a compact formula for the normalized helicity difference of the emitted electron, Eq. (18). For R-camphor ionized by a helium antenna, this gives an asymmetry of +6%, opposite in sign and half the size of the direct PECD of -12%. The result matters because it brings chirality discrimination into resonance energy transfer and shows that non-local energy-transfer steps can transmit, and even reverse, the handedness information of light.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the retarded electric-dipole Green tensor $\mathbf{G}(r_A,r_D,\omega_D)$ of the electromagnetic field, a propagator describing how a dipole at the donor creates a field at the acceptor; the full angle-resolved rate is an absolute square of its contraction with the donor and acceptor dipole matrix elements, Eq. (6). The derivation averages the rate over the intermolecular line of sight using the identities $\overline{\mathbf{e}_r\otimes\mathbf{e}_r} = \tfrac{1}{3}\mathbf{I}$ and the corresponding fourth-rank average, and expresses the acceptor response through its orientation-averaged differential photoionization cross section $d\sigma_\pm/d\Omega = \tfrac{\sigma}{4\pi}[1 \pm \beta_1 P_1(\cos\theta) - \tfrac{1}{2}\beta_2 P_2(\cos\theta)]$. The relative weights of the co-rotating, counter-rotating, and non-rotating dipole projections are set by the functions $f$ and $g$ of $\omega_D r/c$; in the nonretarded limit $f \to 1$, $g \to 3$, which makes the interference term dominate and flips the sign of the dichroic contribution, producing Eq. (18).

What would settle it

A coincidence measurement of photoelectron angular distributions from mass-selected He-camphor complexes, with circularly polarized light tuned to the He $1s2p\ ^1P$ resonance, would decide: if the normalized forward-backward asymmetry of the rICD electron does not approach +6$\%$ for R-camphor with the opposite sign to the direct channel, the prediction is wrong; a calculation for a rigidly fixed He-camphor geometry giving a different sign would equally show the orientation-average assumption is essential.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the helicity of circularly polarized light survives a two-center resonant energy transfer: an achiral donor atom excited to a state of definite magnetic quantum number couples to a chiral acceptor via the retarded dipole-dipole interaction, and the acceptor's photoionization rate $\Gamma_\pm(\theta)$ for the two light helicities differs. After averaging over the random orientations of the donor-acceptor line of sight and of the acceptor molecule, the normalized difference $(\Gamma_+ - \Gamma_-)/\bigl(\tfrac{1}{2}(\Gamma_+ + \Gamma_-)\bigr)$ reduces in the nonretarded limit to $-\beta_1 P_1(\cos\theta)/\bigl(1 - \tfrac{1}{20}\beta_2 P_2(\cos\theta)\bigr)$. Because the interference term in the rate changes sign under the orientation average, the antenna-induced asymmetry has the opposite sign to the conventional PECD of the same molecule. For R-camphor with $\beta_1 = -6\%$, the predicted effect is +6%, half the conventional $2\beta_1 = -12\%$, with slightly more electrons emitted forward than backward.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the donor-acceptor line of sight and the acceptor molecule's orientation vary independently and uniformly, so that a single averaged geometry applies; if the two constituents are locked in a fixed relative orientation, the clean sign-reversed formula Eq. (18) no longer follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The rICD-induced PECD signal for He-camphor is predicted to be +6%, half the magnitude and opposite in sign to the direct PECD of the molecule, making the two channels distinguishable by their angular asymmetry.
  • Since rICD dominates over direct photoionization by roughly a factor of 60 at the resonant excitation energy, the antenna-induced channel can be isolated and observed in photoelectron spectra.
  • In the nonretarded limit the normalized asymmetry of Eq. (18) is independent of the donor-acceptor distance, because the $r^{-6}$ factors cancel, so the sign reversal is a near-field feature that does not wash out over a range of separations.
  • The mechanism transmits the rotatory sense of light through the dipole-dipole interaction alone, so it constitutes a chiral energy transfer without any optical activity of the donor-acceptor pair.
  • The same three-step scheme should extend to other antenna-induced photoionization processes, including systems where both donor and acceptor are chiral.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A non-random relative geometry between donor and acceptor, such as a chemically bound complex, would invalidate the orientation average that produces Eq. (18); the sign and angular pattern of the asymmetry could then depend on the binding site, making the effect a sensitive probe of local structure rather than just handedness.
  • The retarded rate (Eq. 15) implies that at distances comparable to the transition wavelength the balance between co-rotating and counter-rotating contributions changes with $r$, so the asymmetry may oscillate or change sign; distance-resolved experiments could test whether the sign flip is specific to the near-field regime.
  • If rICD from achiral solvent or cluster atoms contributes in realistic environments, PECD measurements on chiral molecules in solution or in droplets could contain an additional, distance-dependent contribution; this would affect how such measurements are interpreted.
  • Interference between the dominant antenna-induced channel and the weak direct PECD channel, which the authors mention, could create energy-dependent modulations of the net asymmetry; coincidence experiments on mass-selected complexes would be the natural way to observe them.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a macroscopic-QED derivation of the rate of resonant interatomic Coulombic decay (rICD) from an achiral donor atom to a chiral acceptor molecule, followed by electron emission. After independent averages over the line-of-sight orientation and the acceptor orientation, the authors derive a compact angle-resolved rate (Eq. (15)) and, in the nonretarded limit, a normalized helicity difference (Eq. (18)) whose sign is opposite to that of the direct PECD of the molecule. They propose a He-camphor complex as a possible realization and predict for R-camphor an antenna-induced asymmetry of about +6%, compared with the direct PECD of about -12%.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper opens an interesting new route for chiral sensing: an achiral atom can act as an antenna that transmits the rotatory sense of circularly polarized light to a chiral molecule through the retarded dipole-dipole interaction, producing a PECD-like electron asymmetry without any optical activity of the donor. The derivation is transparent and largely self-contained, starting from the second-order QED amplitude (Eq. (EM.10)), using the free-space Green tensor, and reducing the acceptor matrix elements to the known differential photoionization cross sections; the only molecular inputs are the acceptor's beta_1 and beta_2 parameters. The sign reversal in Eq. (18) emerges from the averaged interference between co- and counter-rotating terms rather than being introduced by hand. However, the quantitative prediction for the proposed bound He-camphor complex is not secured by the derivation, because the derivation assumes independent random orientations of the line of sight and the molecular frame.

major comments (2)
  1. [Average over the intermolecular line-of-sight orientations / Possible experiment and feasibility] The independence assumption stated before Eq. (8) is explicitly disclaimed when 'donor and acceptor form a tightly bound system, where the donor atom is fixed at a particular site of the acceptor molecule.' The proposed experimental realization, a He-camphor complex in camphor-doped He nanodroplets, is precisely such a tightly bound system: the line-of-sight vector e_r is then fixed in the molecular frame, and the joint distribution of e_r and the acceptor orientation is not the product of the two uniform distributions used to derive Eqs. (15)-(18). For a fixed relative geometry, the same-helicity and interference terms in Eq. (7) are averaged with different weights, and the sign and magnitude of the helicity difference need not follow Eq. (18). I therefore consider the numerical prediction '+6% for R-camphor' to be unsupported as stated. The authors should either compute the angle-resolved rate for the actual fixed-geometry distribution of the He-camphor complex, or present Eq. (18) strictly as the random-orientation limit and identify an experimental system that realizes independent random line-of-sight and molecular orientations.
  2. [Resonant interatomic Coulombic decay, Eq. (1) / Possible experiment and feasibility] The derivation of Eq. (1) is stated to be valid only for separations where electronic wave-function overlap between donor and acceptor can be neglected, and the End Matter explicitly distinguishes this regime from the short-distance regime described by the full Coulomb interaction H_MM'. A tightly bound He-camphor complex at van der Waals separations is not automatically in the large-distance regime, and the effect of exchange, overlap, and charge-transfer contributions on the predicted asymmetry is not estimated. The authors should justify the applicability of the large-distance approximation to the proposed complex or restrict the experimental claim to systems where this approximation is controlled.
minor comments (5)
  1. [End Matter, Eq. (EM.9)] The intermediate-state notation '|1(r, omega>' in Eq. (EM.9) has an unbalanced ket; it should be '|1(r, omega)>'.
  2. [Summary] In the Summary, the phrase 'independent averages of the orientations of the intermolecular line-of-sight and the donor molecule' appears to contain a typo; it should refer to the acceptor molecule, since the donor is the achiral atom.
  3. [Possible experiment and feasibility] The comparison 'half as large asymmetry with opposite sign' uses the conventional PECD of 2*beta_1 and the normalized difference of Eq. (18); the normalization of the two quantities should be stated explicitly so that the factor of two is not misleading.
  4. [Possible experiment and feasibility] The statement that rICD is 'by far dominant at resonant photon energies' is supported by a factor of about 60 in one previously studied case (Ref. [21]); since the relation between rICD and direct ionization can be system-dependent, the authors should qualify this claim for the proposed He-camphor complex or explain how the rICD channel is selected experimentally.
  5. [Eq. (12)] The angle theta in Eq. (12) is defined with respect to the propagation direction of the ionizing radiation; in the rICD context it may be helpful to state explicitly that this direction remains the laboratory z-axis defined by the exciting light after the energy transfer.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sign-reversal prediction is derived via orientation averaging, not assumed or fitted.

full rationale

The paper's central result, Eq. (18), is obtained by substituting the standard PECD angular distribution Eq. (12) (where beta1 is the acceptor's direct dichroic parameter) into the orientation-averaged rICD rate Eq. (15), with the nonretarded limit f=1, g=3. The reversal relative to direct PECD is not an input: it follows from the algebraic weights of the co-rotating and counter-rotating terms in Eq. (15), specifically the negative sign of the first coefficient (-0.4) and the positive counter-rotating weight (+0.6), which combine to give the minus sign in front of beta1 in Eq. (16). The chiral parameter beta1 itself is imported from external measurements and standard theory, not fitted, and the prediction is explicitly proportional to it; using an external molecular parameter as an input to a formula is not circular. The general retarded rate Eq. (1) is taken from Ref. [24] (co-authored by Buhmann), but the End Matter rederives the second-order matrix element, and the starting result is standard, parameter-free macroscopic QED, so the self-citation is not load-bearing in a way that forces the conclusion. Eq. (12) is likewise a standard angular parametrization anchored to external PECD data, and the paper explicitly ties the numerics for camphor to measured beta1 values. The only caveat is the stated assumption that line-of-sight and acceptor orientations are independent and uniformly random; the paper itself notes this fails for a tightly bound donor-acceptor complex, which is a validity risk for the proposed He-camphor experiment, but it is not a circularity in the derivation. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no result is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard macroscopic QED and the known parametrization of molecular photoionization. No free parameters are fitted in this paper; the only imported numerical inputs (beta1, beta2) set the magnitude but not the sign of the predicted asymmetry. The assumptions are explicit and standard for this type of analytic treatment.

free parameters (2)
  • beta1 (dichroic parameter of the acceptor) = -0.06 for R-camphor at 21.218 eV (from Refs [37,38])
    Sets the magnitude of the predicted normalized asymmetry in Eq. (18); imported from experiment, not fitted in this paper. The qualitative sign-flip result is independent of this value.
  • beta2 (anisotropy parameter of the acceptor) = not specified numerically in the paper; from Refs [30,31]
    Appears in the denominator of Eq. (18); imported from prior work. The paper assumes it is small compared to 20 for the order-of-magnitude estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The donor atom is a two-level system with a single downward transition gamma->alpha at frequency omega_D, and circularly polarized light selects a unique excited magnetic substate |gamma> = |l=1, m=+/-1>.
    Introduced in the Scenario section; simplifies the donor to a single electric-dipole transition with a single spherical component, used in Eqs. (8)-(11).
  • domain assumption Donor and acceptor are separated by distances large enough that electronic wave-function overlap, exchange, and charge transfer are negligible.
    Stated after Eq. (1); justifies the use of the multipolar coupling and the free-space Green tensor description.
  • domain assumption The intermolecular line-of-sight orientation and the acceptor molecular orientation are independent and uniformly random.
    Stated before Eq. (8); the paper notes this holds unless donor and acceptor form a tightly bound system. This averaging is essential for the angular form of the final result.
  • domain assumption The acceptor's orientation-averaged differential photoionization cross sections have the parametric forms dsigma_+/dOmega = sigma/(4 pi) [1 + beta1 P1(cos theta) - (1/2) beta2 P2(cos theta)] and dsigma_0/dOmega = sigma/(4 pi) [1 + beta2 P2(cos theta)].
    Equations (12)-(13), quoted from Refs [30,31]. This parametrization is the bridge between the RET matrix elements and the observable PECD; it assumes electric-dipole ionization of a randomly oriented molecule.
  • domain assumption The electromagnetic field is in free space, described by the free-space Green tensor (2), with no macroscopic bodies or dielectric environments.
    Equation (2), used throughout; the paper notes the formalism can in principle include environments.
  • standard math Fermi's golden rule and second-order perturbation theory in the multipolar molecule-field coupling, with the electric-dipole and long-wavelength approximations.
    End Matter Eqs. (EM.1)-(EM.10); this is the standard QED framework for RET, referenced to Ref [24].

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Photoelectron circular dichroism of a chiral molecule induced by resonant interatomic Coulombic decay from an antenna atom." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3IMGIDCH

@misc{pith2026241202377,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Photoelectron circular dichroism of a chiral molecule induced by resonant interatomic Coulombic decay from an antenna atom},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3IMGIDCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02377}
}
read the original abstract

We show that a nonchiral atom can act as an antenna to induce a photoelectron circular dichroism in a nearby chiral molecule in a three-step process: The donor atom (antenna) is initially resonantly excited by circularly polarized radiation. It then transfers its excess energy to the acceptor molecule by means of resonant interatomic Coulombic decay. The latter finally absorbs the energy and emits an electron which exhibits the aforementioned circular dichroism in its angular distribution. We study the process on the basis of the retarded dipole--dipole interaction and report an asymptotic analytic expression for the distance-dependent chiral asymmetry of the photoelectron as induced by resonant interatomic Coulombic decay for random line-of-sight and acceptor orientations. In the nonretarded limit, the predicted chiral asymmetry is reversed as compared to that of a direct photoelectron circular dichroism of the molecule.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02377 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the antenna-induced PECD. An atom is excited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Meierhenrich, Amino acids and the asymmetry of life (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    U. Meierhenrich, Amino acids and the asymmetry of life (Springer, Berlin, 2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Ritchie, Theory of the angular distribution of photoelec- trons ejected from optically active molecules and molecular negative ions, Phys

    B. Ritchie, Theory of the angular distribution of photoelec- trons ejected from optically active molecules and molecular negative ions, Phys. Rev. A13, 1411 (1976)

    work page 1976

  3. [3]

    B ¨owering, T

    N. B ¨owering, T. Lischke, B. Schmidtke, N. M ¨uller, T. Khalil, and U. Heinzmann, Asymmetry in photoelectron emission from chiral molecules induced by circularly po- larized light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 1187 (2001)

    work page 2001

  4. [4]

    G. A. Garcia, L. Nahon, M. Lebech, J.-C. Houver, D. Dowek, and I. Powis, Circular dichroism in the photo- electron angular distribution from randomly oriented enan- tiomers of camphor, J. Chem. Phys. 119, 8781 (2003)

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    Hergenhahn, E

    U. Hergenhahn, E. E. Rennie, O. Kugler, S. Marburger, T. Lischke, I. Powis, and G. Garcia, Photoelectron circular dichroism in core level ionization of randomly oriented pure enantiomers of the chiral molecule camphor, J. Chem. Phys. 120, 4553 (2004)

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    Powis, Photoelectron circular dichroism in chiral molecules, Adv

    I. Powis, Photoelectron circular dichroism in chiral molecules, Adv. Chem. Phys. 138, 267 (2008)

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Nahon, G

    L. Nahon, G. A. Garcia, and I. Powis, Valence shell one- photon photoelectron circular dichroism in chiral systems, J. Electron Spectrosc. Relat. Phenom. 204, 322 (2015)

    work page 2015

  8. [8]

    Beaulieu, A

    S. Beaulieu, A. Ferr ´e, R. G ´eneaux, R. Canonge, D. Descamps, B. Fabre, N. Fedorov, F. L´egare, S. Petit, T. Ru- chon, V . Blanchet, Y . Mairesse, and B. Pons, Universality of photoelectron circular dichroism in the photoionization of chiral molecules, New J. Phys. 18, 102002 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Wollenhaupt, Photoelectron circular dichroism in differ- ent ionization regimes, New J

    M. Wollenhaupt, Photoelectron circular dichroism in differ- ent ionization regimes, New J. Phys. 18, 121001 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Powis, S

    I. Powis, S. Daly, M. Tia, B. Cunha de Miranda, G. A. Gar- cia, and L. Nahon, A photoionization investigation of small, homochiral clusters of glycidol using circularly polarized radiation and velocity map electron–ion coincidence imag- ing, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 16, 467 (2014)

    2014

  3. [11]

    Hartweg, G

    S. Hartweg, G. A. Garcia, D. K. Bo ˇzani´c, and L. Nahon, Condensation Effects on Electron Chiral Asymmetries in the Photoionization of Serine: From Free Molecules to Nanoparticles, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 12, 2385 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Rouquet, M

    E. Rouquet, M. Roy Chowdhury, G. A. Garcia, L. Nahon, J. Dupont, V . Lep`ere, K. Le Barbu-Debus, and A. Zehnacker, Induced photoelectron circular dichroism onto an achiral chromophore, Nat. Commun. 14, 6290 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    L. S. Cederbaum, J. Zobeley, and F. Tarantelli, Giant inter- molecular decay and fragmentation of clusters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 4778 (1997)

    1997

  6. [14]

    into Eq. (8), we arrive at the following angle-resolved transition rate for the antenna-induced ionization Γ±(θ) = |dD ±1|2 8πε2 0ℏr6 |f |2 − 1 3 gf ∗ − 1 3 f g∗ + 1 15 |g|2 × dσ± dΩ + 1 15 |g|2 X q dσq dΩ + 1 15 |g|2 dσ∓ dΩ = c2|dD ±1|2σ 32π2ε2 0ℏω4 Dr6 |f |2 − 1 3 gf ∗ − 1 3...

  7. [15]

    Jahnke, U

    T. Jahnke, U. Hergenhahn, B. Winter, R. D ¨orner, U. Fr¨uhling, P. V . Demekhin, K. Gokhberg, L. S. Cederbaum, A. Ehresmann, A. Knie, and A. Dreuw, Interatomic and intermolecular Coulombic decay, Chem. Rev. 120, 11295 (2020)

    2020

  8. [16]

    Jahnke, A

    T. Jahnke, A. Czasch, M. S. Sch ¨offler, S. Sch ¨ossler, A. Knapp, M. K ¨asz, J. Titze, C. Wimmer, K. Kreidi, R. E. Grisenti, A. Staudte, O. Jagutzki, U. Hergenhahn, H. Schmidt-B¨ocking, and R. D¨orner, Experimental observation of interatomic Coulombic decay in neon dimers, Ph...

    2004

  9. [17]

    L. S. Cederbaum, Fragmentation of molecules by virtual photons from remote neighbors, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 11, 8964 (2020). 6

    2020

  10. [18]

    Barth, S

    S. Barth, S. Joshi, S. Marburger, V . Ulrich, A. Lindblad, G. ¨Ohrwall, O. Bj ¨orneholm, and U. Hergenhahn, Observation of resonant Interatomic Coulombic Decay in Ne clusters, J. Chem. Phys. 122, 241102 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Gokhberg, V

    K. Gokhberg, V . Averbukh, and L. S. Cederbaum, Inter- atomic decay of inner-valence-excited states in clusters, J. Chem. Phys. 124, 144315 (2006)

    2006

  12. [20]

    A. Knie, A. Hans, M. F ¨orstel, U. Hergenhahn, Ph. Schmidt, Ph. Reiß, Ch. Ozga, B. Kambs, F. Trinter, J. V oigtsberger, D. Metz, T. Jahnke, R. D ¨orner, A. I. Kuleff, L. S. Cederbaum, Ph. V . Demekhin, and A. Ehresmann, Detecting ultrafast interatomic electronic processes in m...

    2014

  13. [21]

    Najjari, A

    B. Najjari, A. B. V oitkiv, and C. M ¨uller, Two-center reso- nant photoionization, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 153002 (2010)

    2010

  14. [22]

    Trinter, J

    F. Trinter, J. B. Williams, M. Weller, M. Waitz, M. Pitzer, J. V oigtsberger, C. Schober, G. Kastirke, C. M¨uller, C. Goihl, P. Burzynski, F. Wiegandt, R. Wallauer, A. Kalinin, L. Ph. H. Schmidt, M. Sch ¨offler, Y .-C. Chiang, K. Gokhberg, T. Jahnke, and R. D ¨orner, Vibration...

    2013

  15. [23]

    Hans, Ph

    A. Hans, Ph. Schmidt, Ch. Ozga, C. Richter, H. Otto, X. Holzapfel, G. Hartmann, A. Ehresmann, U. Hergenhahn, and A. Knie, Efficient fluorescence quenching by distant production of a free electron, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 10, 1078 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Santra and L

    R. Santra and L. S. Cederbaum, Non-Hermitian electronic theory and applications to clusters, Phys. Rep. 368, 1 (2002)

    2002

  17. [25]

    J. L. Hemmerich, R. Bennett, and S. Y . Buhmann, The in- fluence of retardation and dielectric environments on inter- atomic Coulombic decay, Nat. Commun. 9, 2934 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, Chiral discrimina- tion in molecular excitation transfer, J. Chem. Phys. 109, 1259 (1998)

    1998

  19. [27]

    J. C. Franz, S. Y . Buhmann, and A. Salam, Discriminatory resonance energy transfer mediated by a chiral environment, New J. Phys. 26, 053002 (2024)

    2024

  20. [28]

    Hartmann, M

    G. Hartmann, M. Ilchen, Ph. Schmidt, C. K¨ustner-Wetekam, C. Ozga, F. Scholz, J. Buck, F. Trinter, J. Viefhaus, A. Ehresmann, M. S. Sch¨offler, A. Knie, and Ph. V . Demekhin, Recovery of high-energy photoelectron circular dichroism through Fano interference, Phys. Rev. Lett. 1...

    2019

  21. [29]

    F ¨orster, Zwischenmolekulare Energiewanderung und Fluoreszenz, Ann

    T. F ¨orster, Zwischenmolekulare Energiewanderung und Fluoreszenz, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) 437, 55 (1948)

    1948

  22. [30]

    D. P. Craig and T. Thirunamachandran, Molecular quantum electrodynamics (Dover Pub. Inc, NY , 1998)

    1998

  23. [31]

    A. Knie, M. Ilchen, Ph. Schmidt, Ph. Reiß, C. Ozga, B. Kambs, A. Hans, N. M ¨uglich, S. A. Galitskiy, L. Glaser, P. Walter, J. Viefhaus, A. Ehresmann, and Ph. V . Demekhin, Angle-resolved study of resonant Auger decay and fluores- cence emission processes after core excitation...

    2014

  24. [32]

    Ilchen, G

    M. Ilchen, G. Hartmann, P. Rupprecht, A. N. Artemyev, R. N. Coffee, Z. Li, H. Ohldag, H. Ogasawara, T. Osipov, D. Ray, Ph. Schmidt, T. J. A. Wolf, A. Ehresmann, S. Moeller, A. Knie, and Ph. V . Demekhin, Emitter-site-selective photo- electron circular dichroism of trifluoromet...

    2017

  25. [33]

    N. B. Bejoy, R. K. Singh, N. K. Singh, B. Pananghat, and G. N. Patwari, Dynamics of hydrogen bond breaking induced by outer-valence intermolecular Coulombic decay, J. Phys. Chem. Lett. 14, 5718 (2023)

    2023

  26. [34]

    Bohlen, R

    M. Bohlen, R. Michiels, M. Michelbach, S. Ferchane, M. Walter, A. Eisfeld, and F. Stienkemeier, Excitation dynam- ics in polyacene molecules on rare-gas clusters, J. Chem. Phys. 156, 034305 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    S. Sen, S. Mandal, S. De, A. Sen, R. Gopal, L. Ben Ltaief, S. Turchini, D. Catone, N. Zema, M. Coreno, R. Richter, M. Mudrich, V . Sharma, and S. R. Krishnan, Electron and ion spectroscopy of camphor doped helium nanodroplets in the extreme UV and soft x-ray regime, J. Phys. B...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Kramida, Yu

    A. Kramida, Yu. Ralchenko, J. Reader, and NIST ASD Team, NIST Atomic Spectra Database (ver. 5.12), Avail- able: https://physics.nist.gov/asd [2024, November 29], Na- tional Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD

    2024

  29. [37]

    E. E. Rennie, I. Powis, U. Hergenhahn, O. Kugeler, G. Gar- cia, T. Lischke, and S. Marburger, Valence and C 1s core level photoelectron spectra of camphor, J. Electron Spec- trosc. Relat. Phenom. 125, 197 (2002)

    2002

  30. [38]

    Powis, C

    I. Powis, C. J. Harding, G. A. Garcia, and L. Nahon, A va- lence photoelectron imaging investigation of chiral asym- metry in the photoionization of fenchone and camphor, ChemPhysChem 9, 475 (2008)

    2008

  31. [39]

    Hadidi, D

    R. Hadidi, D. K. Bozanic, G. A. Garcia, and L. Na- hon, Electron asymmetries in the photoionization of chiral molecules: possible astrophysical implications, Adv. Phys. X 3, 1477530 (2018)

    2018

  32. [40]

    S. Y . Buhmann, L. Kn ¨oll, D.-G. Welsch, and H. T. Dung, Casimir-Polder forces: A nonperturbative approach, Phys. Rev. A 70, 052117 (2004). End Matter Macroscopic QED —Macroscopic QED is a theory of the interaction of individual particles with charges qi with the quantized el...

    2004

  33. [41]

    Thereby, a complex conjugation of unit vectors and components obeys the identities e∗ q = ( −1)qe−q, v∗ q = ( −1)qv−q, and the scalar product of two vectors v and w can be expressed in terms of spherical components according to v · w = P q(−1)qv−qwq

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.